2025:JHHC:20743 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.726 of 2023 Vinod Kumar, S/o Late Madan Chandravansi, R/o Qr. No.285/AN, Nurse Colony, Dhurwa, PO- Dhurwa, PS Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Babita Kachhap @ Shanti, S/o Vinod Kumar and D/o Sri Anand Kumar Kachhap 3. Shivang, S/o Vinod Kumar 4. Divya, D/o Vinod Kumar 5. Abhya, D/o Vinod Kumar Opp. Part Nos.3 to 5 are represented through her natural guardian and mother, Babita Kachhap @ Shanti, All resident of Beldar Mohalla, PO & PS- Doranda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. V. S. Sahay, APP …... 07/ 28.07.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. The instant Cr. Revision has been filed against the order of maintenance passed in Original Maintenance Case No.163 of 2021 whereby and whereunder a total maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month has been allowed in favour of petitioner no.1 and her three minor children. 2. The learned Family Court recorded a finding that the petitioner was serving as a Health worker and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.14,034/- per month as on April, 2022. 3. The order impugned has been assailed on the ground that the Opp. Party No.2 has failed to prove the marital status to the extent that the petitioner was married to her. 4. Before entering into the merit of the present case, I find that I.A. No.7045 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay of 288 days in preferring the instant Cr. Revision petition. 5. Notice was earlier issued to the O.P. No.2, but she has not appeared. 6. Plea of condonation of delay is pleaded on the ground that the petitioner had no knowledge about about the impugned order, and came to know when show cause was served by the Department 2025:JHHC:20743 2 concerned. This plea is not sustainable for the reason that this petitioner had appeared before the Family Court, therefore, he cannot feign ignorance about the pending maintenance Case. Grant of maintenance is to prevent destitution and vagrancy, therefore speedy disposal of such cases is the very heart and soul of the legislative intent behind providing maintenance. A deliberate delay on frivolous grounds in filing revision is intended to defeat the object of the provision. 7. I find no merit for condoning the said delay and I.A. No.7045 of 2024 stands dismissed. Consequently, the instant Cr. Revision also stands dismissed. 8. So far the plea that the fraud was played in getting the order of maintenance is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of competent Civil Court to challenge the same. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/-